The Impact of Lumbar Stabilization and Thoracic Mobilization Exercises on Pain, Disability and Quality of Life in Individuals with Chronic Low Back Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of adding thoracic mobilization to lumbar stabilization exercises for managing chronic low back pain (CLBP). Fifty-four CLBP patients were randomly assigned to two groups: the Lumbar Stabilization (LS) group and the Lumbar Stabilization plus Thoracic Mobilization (LS+TM) group. Pain intensity, functional disability, and quality of life were assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Quebec Low Back Pain Disability Scale (QLPSD), and EuroQOL-5D-3L, respectively. Both groups participated in a six-week intervention with three sessions per week. Significant improvements were observed in pain intensity, functional disability, and quality of life for both groups (p < 0.05). However, post-intervention analyses indicated that the LS+TM group experienced superior reductions in functional disability and greater enhancements in quality of life compared to the LS group (p < 0.05). While both exercise regimens were effective in managing CLBP, the addition of thoracic mobilization to lumbar stabilization exercises provided more significant benefits in functional recovery and overall well-being.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".